Posted on 05/28/2017 10:43:11 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
The proposed Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A concept for Australia will be an entirely new, unproven diesel-electric submarine class.
By putting the cart firmly before the horse, the Australian Department of Defence has accepted maker DCNS’ proposal to define the displacement of the future submarines before the design, equipment selection, integration and validation of systems have been completed.
Both the Japanese and the Germans offered alternative, proven platforms — the former an evolved Soryu-class and the latter an amalgam of their Type 212, 214 and 218 designs. The French have offered a submarine design that houses the evolved propulsion system of the diesel-electric Scorpene in the hull of the unproven nuclear-powered Barracuda. This stands in stark contrast to the Japanese and German navies whose underwater warfare capabilities are firmly anchored in the design, construction and operation of diesel-electric submarines.
A typical submarine design process starts with the desired payload, range and endurance requirements. Then the numerous systems are specified and designed, including detailed evaluation, prototype manufacture, reliability testing, error and safety proofing. During the early phase of the design, the volume, weight and the layout of the equipment should be determined to minimise the size of the submarine without compromising buoyancy and static stability. Only then should the hull size and shape be configured to optimise hydrodynamic and signature performance.
The selection of the nuclear-powered Barracuda platform and the Scorpene’s diesel-electric propulsion system as the reference points for the Royal Australian Navy’s future submarine capability raises a multitude of concerns. With the constraints imposed by a 5000-tonne hull displacement, optimisation of the Shortfin Barracuda poses unprecedented challenges in diesel-electric submarine design.
We can expect that DCNS has prepared computer models on the hydrodynamic performance of the French Barracuda. They would have convinced the DOD of the superior manoeuvrability, drag and acoustic performances of their future nuclear attack submarine.
In propulsion — diesel alternators, the main electrical motor, batteries and general electrical distribution systems — DCNS engineers would have up-scaled the power and ancillary plants of their 2000-tonne Scorpene in their computations for the design of the future Australian submarine class.
But to morph two fundamentally disparate submarine concepts into a new design while retaining a predetermined hull length and diameter is fraught with complexity and risk. The DCNS claims that the hydrodynamic and signature performance of the Shortfin Barracuda will be equal or better than either the nuclear-powered Barracuda or the Scorpene can only be based on extensive computer modelling and tank testing. That, however, is a world apart from the unforgiving reality of maritime operations. The forced marriage of two existing designs into the Shortfin Barracuda is predicated on substituting a diesel-electric system for the 50MW nuclear reactor, turboreductors and the main motor, the propulsion system, and a host of auxiliary machinery.
Wow, the Australians are letting the French experiment on their future sub?
This is like a red flag scam. The Charles de Gaulle was such a problem concept. And Australians have sent back Tiger helos...
Anyway, a lot of articles with several seeming to have one agenda or another. Personally I want Australia to have the best possible. Some claim that would be an updated Los Angeles class, but the logistics of having a nuclear submarine are not that simple (and if they were to get one, they would have gone for the normal nuclear Barracuda since it would have been easier to get that than the LA, and definitely the Virginia ...with the Barracuda sitting somewhere between the LA and Virginia, making it a good vessel).
Anyway, I am sure the Aussies know what they are doing. After all, they have the data for the three final competitors and they went for the Shortfin.
Too bad we can sell them a couple of VIRGINIAs. They need subs more any other weapon.
They’re not always wrong, but there’s a huge group of people involved in defence journalism concerning Australia who love to rubbish any new acquisition and are always looking to present things in a negative light. It gets rather tiresome and it makes it really hard to tell when they have a point.
“Too bad we can sell them a couple of VIRGINIAs. They need subs more any other weapon.”
I think Australia’s submarine requirement is different than ours. I believe ours is primarily strategic while theirs is tactical. The Aussies currently only have six Collins class subs which are diesel-electric. Also, while a huge country, there’s only 21m people there with a GDP of only $1.1 trillion. Compare to Texas which has 28m people and a GDP of $1.9 trillion. So, the challenge for the Aussies are their huge defense requirements while having very limited fiscal resources (money) to meet them. It’s not talked about much but China and India have long cast a yearning eye on Australia’s huge and mostly vacant land mass to the west of the Pacific arc as a solution to their population problem. Japan had similar covetous ideas prior to WWII but we fixed that for them....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
